What Are You Watching Now
-
It's time for Harry Potter 2 on HBO!!
-
-
@flaxking said in What Are You Watching Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Watching Now:
It's time for Harry Potter 2 on HBO!!
ouch
Yeah, the first two are pretty bad. But getting ready for the good ones.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Watching Now:
@flaxking said in What Are You Watching Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Watching Now:
It's time for Harry Potter 2 on HBO!!
ouch
Yeah, the first two are pretty bad. But getting ready for the good ones.
I actually prefer the first two to the rest of them. Some fantastic costumes and sets, and some great casting.
You just have to deal with child acting and a not smoothed out book to movie translation.
If we have kids they're going to be shocked the first time they find out HP movies exist.
-
@flaxking said in What Are You Watching Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Watching Now:
@flaxking said in What Are You Watching Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Watching Now:
It's time for Harry Potter 2 on HBO!!
ouch
Yeah, the first two are pretty bad. But getting ready for the good ones.
I actually prefer the first two to the rest of them. Some fantastic costumes and sets, and some great casting.
You just have to deal with child acting and a not smoothed out book to movie translation.
If we have kids they're going to be shocked the first time they find out HP movies exist.
I don't mind the kids in teh first ones, they had to be rough, they were so young. It's the insanely trimmed story lines and focus on super goofy effects instead of the story. They went for so much broom flying, computer characters flailing around, and running from event to event and not establishing a mood. They are so trimmed, that if you don't read the books, they don't even quite make sense. My six year old complains that they are so cut compared to the books.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Watching Now:
@flaxking said in What Are You Watching Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Watching Now:
@flaxking said in What Are You Watching Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Watching Now:
It's time for Harry Potter 2 on HBO!!
ouch
Yeah, the first two are pretty bad. But getting ready for the good ones.
I actually prefer the first two to the rest of them. Some fantastic costumes and sets, and some great casting.
You just have to deal with child acting and a not smoothed out book to movie translation.
If we have kids they're going to be shocked the first time they find out HP movies exist.
I don't mind the kids in teh first ones, they had to be rough, they were so young. It's the insanely trimmed story lines and focus on super goofy effects instead of the story. They went for so much broom flying, computer characters flailing around, and running from event to event and not establishing a mood. They are so trimmed, that if you don't read the books, they don't even quite make sense. My six year old complains that they are so cut compared to the books.
I haven't seen any movies made after the Goblet of Fire because of how drastically they cut the story down.
-
@kelly said in What Are You Watching Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Watching Now:
@flaxking said in What Are You Watching Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Watching Now:
@flaxking said in What Are You Watching Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Watching Now:
It's time for Harry Potter 2 on HBO!!
ouch
Yeah, the first two are pretty bad. But getting ready for the good ones.
I actually prefer the first two to the rest of them. Some fantastic costumes and sets, and some great casting.
You just have to deal with child acting and a not smoothed out book to movie translation.
If we have kids they're going to be shocked the first time they find out HP movies exist.
I don't mind the kids in teh first ones, they had to be rough, they were so young. It's the insanely trimmed story lines and focus on super goofy effects instead of the story. They went for so much broom flying, computer characters flailing around, and running from event to event and not establishing a mood. They are so trimmed, that if you don't read the books, they don't even quite make sense. My six year old complains that they are so cut compared to the books.
I haven't seen any movies made after the Goblet of Fire because of how drastically they cut the story down.
You quit too soon. They get better and better and by book seven they are amazing.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Watching Now:
@kelly said in What Are You Watching Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Watching Now:
@flaxking said in What Are You Watching Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Watching Now:
@flaxking said in What Are You Watching Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Watching Now:
It's time for Harry Potter 2 on HBO!!
ouch
Yeah, the first two are pretty bad. But getting ready for the good ones.
I actually prefer the first two to the rest of them. Some fantastic costumes and sets, and some great casting.
You just have to deal with child acting and a not smoothed out book to movie translation.
If we have kids they're going to be shocked the first time they find out HP movies exist.
I don't mind the kids in teh first ones, they had to be rough, they were so young. It's the insanely trimmed story lines and focus on super goofy effects instead of the story. They went for so much broom flying, computer characters flailing around, and running from event to event and not establishing a mood. They are so trimmed, that if you don't read the books, they don't even quite make sense. My six year old complains that they are so cut compared to the books.
I haven't seen any movies made after the Goblet of Fire because of how drastically they cut the story down.
You quit too soon. They get better and better and by book seven they are amazing.
I'm going to try them again at some point, but I'm a bit leery. That one was so bad.
-
I've read the first four HP books, and seen the first 3 or 4... but was years ago.
-
I've read the books and seen the movies. I think the books are significantly better, but I also don't think the movies were terrible as a whole.
-
Books are always better with everything.
Books contain so many more details and a ton more "time". If you duplicated a book to a movie you'd have like a 12+ hour movie and spend a billion dollars. YOu just can't. So it's all pick and choose.
-
@tim_g said in What Are You Watching Now:
Books are always better with everything.
Books contain so many more details and a ton more "time". If you duplicated a book to a movie you'd have like a 12+ hour movie and spend a billion dollars. YOu just can't. So it's all pick and choose.
I think Peter Jackson did a decent job with LotR, at least remaining true to the spirit of the story while not including 100% of the details.
-
@kelly said in What Are You Watching Now:
@tim_g said in What Are You Watching Now:
Books are always better with everything.
Books contain so many more details and a ton more "time". If you duplicated a book to a movie you'd have like a 12+ hour movie and spend a billion dollars. YOu just can't. So it's all pick and choose.
I think Peter Jackson did a decent job with LotR, at least remaining true to the spirit of the story while not including 100% of the details.
Yeah, but then you have to watch 4 hours of walking.... (and $100,000,000 budget back in 1991!)
-
@kelly said in What Are You Watching Now:
@tim_g said in What Are You Watching Now:
Books are always better with everything.
Books contain so many more details and a ton more "time". If you duplicated a book to a movie you'd have like a 12+ hour movie and spend a billion dollars. YOu just can't. So it's all pick and choose.
I think Peter Jackson did a decent job with LotR, at least remaining true to the spirit of the story while not including 100% of the details.
Yes, I think LotR movies are actually BETTER than the books, which are so painfully boring...
-
@kelly said in What Are You Watching Now:
@tim_g said in What Are You Watching Now:
Books are always better with everything.
Books contain so many more details and a ton more "time". If you duplicated a book to a movie you'd have like a 12+ hour movie and spend a billion dollars. YOu just can't. So it's all pick and choose.
I think Peter Jackson did a decent job with LotR, at least remaining true to the spirit of the story while not including 100% of the details.
Tolkien was terrible with prose. He couldn't write himself out of a box if he tried. His world building though was phenomenal, and that's really the only reason you read the LoTR or the Silmarillion. The Hobbit was slightly better but still only for the world elements.
-
@coliver said in What Are You Watching Now:
@kelly said in What Are You Watching Now:
@tim_g said in What Are You Watching Now:
Books are always better with everything.
Books contain so many more details and a ton more "time". If you duplicated a book to a movie you'd have like a 12+ hour movie and spend a billion dollars. YOu just can't. So it's all pick and choose.
I think Peter Jackson did a decent job with LotR, at least remaining true to the spirit of the story while not including 100% of the details.
Tolkien was terrible with prose. He couldn't write himself out of a box if he tried. His world building though was phenomenal, and that's really the only reason you read the LoTR or the Silmarillion. The Hobbit was slightly better but still only for the world elements.
Actually, I don't like his world building, either. I find his worlds to be two dimensional and nonsensical. It doesn't feel like a "living" world. Things are big and overdramatic in a world that is empty and pointless.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Watching Now:
@coliver said in What Are You Watching Now:
@kelly said in What Are You Watching Now:
@tim_g said in What Are You Watching Now:
Books are always better with everything.
Books contain so many more details and a ton more "time". If you duplicated a book to a movie you'd have like a 12+ hour movie and spend a billion dollars. YOu just can't. So it's all pick and choose.
I think Peter Jackson did a decent job with LotR, at least remaining true to the spirit of the story while not including 100% of the details.
Tolkien was terrible with prose. He couldn't write himself out of a box if he tried. His world building though was phenomenal, and that's really the only reason you read the LoTR or the Silmarillion. The Hobbit was slightly better but still only for the world elements.
Actually, I don't like his world building, either. I find his worlds to be two dimensional and nonsensical. It doesn't feel like a "living" world. Things are big and overdramatic in a world that is empty and pointless.
Which kind of fits the fantasy mold (which I guess he helped create so you have a point). It's not a living world persay but the historical depth and the grandiose elements are what most people see as world building.
-
@coliver said in What Are You Watching Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Watching Now:
@coliver said in What Are You Watching Now:
@kelly said in What Are You Watching Now:
@tim_g said in What Are You Watching Now:
Books are always better with everything.
Books contain so many more details and a ton more "time". If you duplicated a book to a movie you'd have like a 12+ hour movie and spend a billion dollars. YOu just can't. So it's all pick and choose.
I think Peter Jackson did a decent job with LotR, at least remaining true to the spirit of the story while not including 100% of the details.
Tolkien was terrible with prose. He couldn't write himself out of a box if he tried. His world building though was phenomenal, and that's really the only reason you read the LoTR or the Silmarillion. The Hobbit was slightly better but still only for the world elements.
Actually, I don't like his world building, either. I find his worlds to be two dimensional and nonsensical. It doesn't feel like a "living" world. Things are big and overdramatic in a world that is empty and pointless.
Which kind of fits the fantasy mold (which I guess he helped create so you have a point). It's not a living world persay but the historical depth and the grandiose elements are what most people see as world building.
that's actually where I feel it is bad... ridiculously in depth details that don't make sense in the tiny, flat world that isn't robust enough to handle the history.
I feel like he was so distracted writing the history, that he forgot to make the world.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Watching Now:
@coliver said in What Are You Watching Now:
@kelly said in What Are You Watching Now:
@tim_g said in What Are You Watching Now:
Books are always better with everything.
Books contain so many more details and a ton more "time". If you duplicated a book to a movie you'd have like a 12+ hour movie and spend a billion dollars. YOu just can't. So it's all pick and choose.
I think Peter Jackson did a decent job with LotR, at least remaining true to the spirit of the story while not including 100% of the details.
Tolkien was terrible with prose. He couldn't write himself out of a box if he tried. His world building though was phenomenal, and that's really the only reason you read the LoTR or the Silmarillion. The Hobbit was slightly better but still only for the world elements.
Actually, I don't like his world building, either. I find his worlds to be two dimensional and nonsensical. It doesn't feel like a "living" world. Things are big and overdramatic in a world that is empty and pointless.
Only my 2nd downvote ever on this site. You choose HP over LOTR, come on. Not even in the same league. HP is double A minor league in comparison to LOTR.
-
@momurda said in What Are You Watching Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Watching Now:
@coliver said in What Are You Watching Now:
@kelly said in What Are You Watching Now:
@tim_g said in What Are You Watching Now:
Books are always better with everything.
Books contain so many more details and a ton more "time". If you duplicated a book to a movie you'd have like a 12+ hour movie and spend a billion dollars. YOu just can't. So it's all pick and choose.
I think Peter Jackson did a decent job with LotR, at least remaining true to the spirit of the story while not including 100% of the details.
Tolkien was terrible with prose. He couldn't write himself out of a box if he tried. His world building though was phenomenal, and that's really the only reason you read the LoTR or the Silmarillion. The Hobbit was slightly better but still only for the world elements.
Actually, I don't like his world building, either. I find his worlds to be two dimensional and nonsensical. It doesn't feel like a "living" world. Things are big and overdramatic in a world that is empty and pointless.
Only my 2nd downvote ever on this site. You choose HP over LOTR, come on. Not even in the same league. HP is double A minor league in comparison to LOTR.
I don't know. HP actually has a coherent story in addition to decent world building, although she didn't go into a ton of depth where I wish there was some. LOTR can't even compare to that.
